- From: Hugh Guiney <hugh.guiney@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 03:58:50 -0500
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote: > The @caption proposal isn't for an attribute on <p> only, but rather > for an attribute on any element that is a child of a <figure>. (It's > just that most of the time using a <p> is most appropriate.) Ah, OK. Well, given the circumstances, this does seem like the best approach, though I feel conditionally allowing certain attributes depending on an element's context is a step in the wrong direction. It's confusing given the way HTML will have worked up until that point; as a document author, although I expect elements themselves only to be allowed in certain contexts, I also expect them to carry all of their attributes with them when they are; i.e., attributes are perceived as belonging to the element within which they are set, not the parent of that element. Most of us agree that a more semantic element would be ideal here, yet we can't use one [yet] because of current technical limitations. That sounds like the very situation microformats was created to address. What if we used @itemprop as a placeholder for a future figure-caption element? To make things less verbose, <figure> could have an implied @itemscope and @itemtype unless specifically overwritten by the author. Ex: <figure> <img src="figure.gif" alt="graph"> <p itemprop="caption">The findings</p> </figure> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote: > It's not just rendering issues - all current browsers produce a broken DOM > when you include <legend> outside of <fieldset>, ranging from dropping the > <legend> element entirely to creating a fieldset to doing the IE thing of > adding void elements named "legend" and "/legend" (but without the usual > script workaround. Is this issue being addressed by the latest DOM specification? It seems there should really be a standard behavior for browsers when encountering unknown or unexpected elements that ensures that the next version of HTML is not similarly encumbered by this.
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 00:58:50 UTC